State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaa d Jaan
Case Details
Page 1 of 11 11 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110+241 Raj Kumar Gurjant Singh ingh & Others Vs. CR-7157-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.03.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladaw for the petitioner. dawale, Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition has been er en filed by the plaintiff no.1under Article 227 of 7 of the Constitution of India seekin ed eking setting aside of order dated 09.05.2017 pa 7 passed by learned Additional Dist ing District Judge, Sangrur dismissing the appeal file l filed by the petitioner against ord by order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned C d Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sang led Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitio etitioner for restoration of the s ce e suit for specific performance dismissed in d in default for want of prosecution en tionon 23.07.2013, had also been dismissed; wit ; with further prayer for restoration tion of the Civil Suit. 2. Learned counsel for the pe at e petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner oner had amply demonstrated befo ow before the learned Courts below that there we were valid and cogent reasons giv ing given by the petitioner for being unable to ap appear before the learned tria he trial Court on 23.07.2013. The petitioner ha had produced exhaustive medic ark edical record (Mark A to Mark D/Annexure P3 re P3 herein) to show that the petit ital etitioner was admitted in hospital at the said tim d time and was therefore, unable ed ble to appear before the learned SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) trial Court on t on 23.07.2013. Therefore, the Page 2 of 11 11 (cid:1) he the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner in d in default on 23.07.2013 was unc at uncalled for. It is submitted that even the appl application for restoration of the su he e suit has been dismissed by the learned trial C ial Court vide order dated 27.05.2 he .05.2015 (Annexure P2); and the appeal therea ereagainst has been dismissed by t ict by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangru grur vide order dated 09.05.2017 sel on ground of delay. Ld. counsel relies upon jud n judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme lhi) eme Court in <State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaa d Jaan= Criminal Appeal No.1262 of , 2 of 2008 decided on 12.08.2008, to submit tha that <...The expression <sufficient ca to nt cause= is adequately elastic to enable the cou court to apply the law in a meanin ves aningful manner which sub-serves the ends of ju of justice 3 that being the life-purp the purpose for the existence of the institution of of courts. It is common knowled en wledge that this Court has been making a justif justifiably liberal approach in matter It atters instituted in this Court....=. It is accordingly ingly prayed that the present p he t petition be allowed and the impugned ord orders of the courts below be set as et aside. 3. 4. No other argument is mad ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou nd counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the case ar he e are that in the year 2008, the petitioner/pla
Legal Reasoning
/plaintiff no.1 along with Sukhpal K a pal Kaur/plaintiff no.2 had filed a suit seeking ng specific performance of Agreem 05 eement to Sell dated 11.05.2005 executed by d by defendants in favour of plaintiff i.e. ntiff regarding area of 3 kanal i.e. 1800 square y re yards out of area 13 kanal 7 m nt 7 marla; and suit for permanent SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) injunction res restraining the defendants from a Page 3 of 11 11 (cid:1) es m alienating the suit land. Issues were framed i ed in the case on 17.2.2011. Howe to owever, as the petitioner failed to conclude his his evidence, and as the petit in etitioner also failed to put in appearance, e, the suit of plaintiffs was dism of dismissed in default for want of prosecution vi vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Ann (Annexure P1). 6. Subsequently an application appl dated 13 19.09.2013 (Annexure P2 P2), was moved for restoration of he of the suit; however, only by the petitioner/pla plaintiff no.1 Raj Kumar and . nd Sukhpal Kaur/plaintiff no.2. Restoration wa n was soughton the ground that on as t on 28.06.2013 the petitioner was admitted in Co in Colombia Asia Hospital, Patiala an He la and was operated for Hernia. He was discharge arged on 30.06.2013 and he was a As as advised compete bed rest. As such he could uld not come present in Court on 23 n 23.07.2013. 7. Vide order dated 27.05.2 aid 05.2015 (Annexure P-2), the said application wa n was dismissed by the learned Civi in Civil Judge on the grounds that in case, the peti petitioner was not available on 23 o.2 n 23.07.2013, then plaintiff no.2 Sukhpal Kaur aur could have appeared before the nd e the Court on the date fixed; and that the petiti etitioner had produced medical rec ich l record Mark A to D as per which he was disch ischarged on 30.06.2013. As per he per the documents C & D the petitioner had had again travelled all the way to his y to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his medical treatm reatment. Therefore, he could easi sel easily have contacted his counsel after 23.07.20 7.2013 and could have inquired ab rial about his case. The learned trial court also too took note of the fact that the ap ad e application for restoration had SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) been filed af d after more than one month, Page 4 of 11 11 (cid:1) ing whereas limitation for filing application for n for restoration is 30 days. 8. The petitioner filed appeal . peal against the order 27.05.2015. Vide order dat r dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure P4), ed 4), the appeal was also dismissed by the learne rned Additional District Judge, San he , Sangrur on the ground that the petitioner had had not proved his original medical d dical record Mark A to D as he had only marked t ed the photocopies of bills. The pet ed petitioner had also not examined any doctor to to substantiate his plea that he w as e was operated for Hernia. It was also noted tha that as per the said Medical recor led ecord the petitioner had travelled all the way to y to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his tr uld is treatment. Therefore, he could also have con contacted/ met his counsel rega he regarding the present case. The learned Additi dditional District Judge also noted t on ed that the suit was dismissed on 23.07.2013 an 3 and limitation to file application fo ut on for restoration was 30 days but restoration ap application was moved after lim 13. limitation period on 19.09.2013. No explanatio ation has been given by the petition itioner for the above facts. 9. The above factual matrix er atrix reveals that the petitioner has exhibited ted an utterly casual attitude i nt e in his pursuit of the present litigation. The The law of Limitation is enacted wit of with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and ca d cannot be ignored/reduce to an by an ineffective piece of paper by giving it the c he complete go-by. It is the boun to ounden duty of every litigant to pursue his ca s case diligently; and it is also the to the bounden duty this Court to ensure that ju justice inuresto both parties conc ve oncerned. It is my view that grave injustice will b ill be caused to the respondent in at t in case the matter is restored at SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) this belated st d stage. As already noticed above, Page 5 of 11 11 (cid:1) t is ve, in the present case, the suit is of the year 20 r 2008; in respect of an agreement ere ent of 2005; in which issues were framed in 201 2011; whereafter matter was dism in dismissed for non-prosecution in 2013, as the p he petitioner had failed to conclud be clude his evidence. It is also to be appreciated th d that very valuable public time in ime of the Court is expended in ensuringafford ffording opportunities in the inter he interest of justice. However, the same cannot not be misused to endlessly dra air drag the matter to the unfair advantage or or disadvantage of either party.It he It has been recently held by the Delhi High Co h Court in case of <Moddus Me ne Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi)= Law Finder Doc Doc Id # 887148, that: <11. The litigant owes a du hts a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equa ial equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court ted ourt of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cann the cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. I is te. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate lay cate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree or cree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant can ke t cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after if after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits fil ts. its filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the ke n the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally or tally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings the ngs is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant c be nt company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have nt ave been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate ted rate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated ery ted businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The nd . The litigant is to be vigilant and SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) pursue his case diligently on all th Page 6 of 11 11 (cid:1) es all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leave his eaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to s to what different us frivolous pleas/defences being taken by hi s is by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant do the nt does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders o ut ers of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the the y the court is liable to bear the consequences.= 10. I am in complete agree ew greement with the above view expressed by by the Delhi High Court. Further, er her, ld. counsel for the petitioner can derive no no help from the relied upon judg an judgment in case of Ahmed Jaan supra as in the the said case, the respondent ther on therein had been apprehended on the basis of of information that he belongs t - gs to terrorist outfit Tehreek-ul- Mujahideen; ; whereafter he had faced trial an 98 l and vide order dated 30.10.1998 the responden ndent/accused had been discharge no arged holding that there was no legal evidence ence to show that he had committe he itted any of the alleged acts. The appeal was fil s filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) ion elhi) by way of Criminal Revision Petition 356/2 56/2004 which was dismissed by th ed y the High Court vide order dated 10.08.2005 on 5 on grounds of limitation. It was in ble as in this background the Hon9ble Supreme Cour Court held that the State Governm ith ernment cannot be equated with civilian citizen izens holding that:- <13. In G. Ramegowda, Major ion ajor Versus Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1988(1) RRR 555 : (1988 at 1988(2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the p its the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expre ust xpression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so tial n so as to advance substantial SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) justice and generally delays in ju Page 7 of 11 11 (cid:1) are s in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the no the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate ina s is te inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seekin In eking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government i her ent is a party, there is yet another aspect which, per-haps, cannot b ht ot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for s is or such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in ers at, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions ive ons of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do ics d do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals no duals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private tal ate citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like a ke ke any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omi a omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion ter xion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a c as t a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to on g to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents ere ents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. I t in h it. It was, there-fore, held that in assessing what constitutes suffi of sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, to ps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the consideration th ict, on that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar the uliar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government fu are ent. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, a ble d, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in t . A e in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, ther t is , therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear ent bear responsibility of Government must have "a little play at the join ese e joints". Due recognition of these limitations on governmental fun hin l functioning - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if to ry if the judicial approach is not to SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) be rendered unrealistic. It wou Page 8 of 11 11 (cid:1) nd would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government an me t and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such m fo ery uch matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental funct functioning lay is procedural delay incidental to the decision-making ver aking process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condone doned. 14. It is axiomatic that decisions a ies ons are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and en ing encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table a for le and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay s a lay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of the of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decis decision re. is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of lat . If f latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State no State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but sis d but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The e se" he expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered - ered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than of than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining ev ors ng every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and charac of haracteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions w nd ns would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic ted atic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide ess cide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without me to t merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the nt the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict stan he standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level s to evel should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any le for ny legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether nd ther cases require adjustment and should authorize the officers t ive ers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlem ion ettlement. In the event of decision SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) to file appeal needed prompt act Page 9 of 11 11 (cid:1) the t action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the ap de e appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapse ate apses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same fo he e footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick i her uick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy or edy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person le an on legally injured while State is an rking impersonal machinery working through or its officers or servants.= 11. In the present case, as he as already noticed above, the reasons given iven by the petitioner for the delay nt delay, do not constitute sufficient cause. Moreo reover, the petitioner cannot be p he e put on the same footing as the State Agencies ncies. 12. Relevant part of the order by rder dated 09.05.2017 passed by learned Additi dditional District Judge, Sangrur is as is as under:- <10. The case of the appellant/ on lant/plaintiff Raj Kumar, that on 28.06.2013, he was admitted tal, ted to Colombia Asia Hospital, Patiala and was Operated upon f ed on for Hernia. He was discharged on 30.06.2013 and advise comple uld mplete rest and as such he could not come present in the court on his rt on 23.07.2013. In support of his plea, the appellant himself appea to ppeared as AW1 and rendered into evidence is duly sworn affida he ffidavit EX-AW1/A, wherein he reiterated his pleaded version if ing on if the applicant was suffering from Hernia, to prove statement fro his ent with regard to that it was his bounden duty to bring on record rd cord, the regional medical record and to prove the same as per the per rules of evidence, but the applicant neither has proved his o he his original medical record, as he has only marked the photocopies ph of bills. he The appellant/plaintiff has also not to not examine the any doctor to SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) substantiate his plea that he was Page 10 of 11 11 (cid:1) ia. was operated upon for his Hernia. Even if for the sake of arguments uld ents it is presumed that he could not appear due to his ill health, h at lth, his medical record shows that the appellant Raj Kumar had trav on travelled all the way to Patiala on 08.07.2013 for his medical treatm at eatment which further shows that he was in position of fit sta ke statement of health to make movement and in case he can v he an visit the doctor at Patiala, he could definitely meet his counse as unsel at Sangrur. The case was dismissed in default on 23.07.20 ent 07.2013 and there was sufficient time for him to enquire betwee 13 tween 08.07.2013 to 23.07.2013 with his counsel which he fail his failed to do which shows his negligence in this regard. For t nt or the conduct of the applicant shows that civil suit was filed in t the d in the year 2008, issues and the suit were framed on 17.02.20 to 2.2011 and when he failed to conclude evidence then finally on ed ly on 23.07.2013 it was dismissed in default which also speaks volum nt volume of conduct of the appellant that he never bothered about th the ut this case and it seems that the suit was filed by him to harass th sel ss the defendants. The Ld. counsel for the appellant relied upon the fo od n the observations made in Food
Legal Reasoning
Corporation of India versus Smt. . C. Smt. Arvinder Kaur 2001 (3) C. C. Cases 30 (P & H) and V.Na t. V.Narayanaswamy versus Smt. Doddaventatamma&Ors. 2006 (2 . 06 (2) C. C. Cases 37 (Karnataka). I have gone through the pronounc Ld. ouncements relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the appellant but the to t the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it of , as it was held that for the fault of the lawyer client should not suffe is suffer, but in the present case it is not the case. Further, in the seco t it second judicial pronouncement it has been mentioned that when t ion en the application for restoration has been filed in time at the suit ed, suit should normally be restored, but in the present case the suit o ed uit of the appellant was dismissed on 23.07.2013 and the for mitation to file application for limita SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) restoration was thirty days and th Page 11 of 11 11 (cid:1) ed nd the said application was moved after the limitation period. Furth the Further, it also speaks about the conduct of the appellant that aft uit t after 23.07.2013 when the suit was dismissed he did not enquire irty uire for the case for another thirty days. So in the given set of circum ion ircumstances, I am of the opinion that Ld. trial court has rightly d ing tly dismiss the application having been moved by the appellant/ pl uit, t/ plaintiff for restoration of suit, being time barred. So, the order the rder under appeal passed by the Learned trial Court does not call fo all for any interference.= 13. I find no ground is ma he made out to interfere in the concurrent jud t judgments of the learned Courts is rts below. The present petition is accordingly, d dismissed. 14. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 03.03.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.03.12 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)